Mini 693 - Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Mafia (OVER)

[iLord]

Vote Pesco47

for highly secret questions that have to do with -------.

[iLord]

just for that I'm going ot vote: iLord because Jesus is not a Mac.

I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken.

For your lack of knowledge of RoBoTJeSuS,

Vote: ZONEFACE

[iLord]

Unvote, Vote ZONEFACE

There, that's better !

[iLord]

@Coheed: Why?

[iLord]

Why are you speculating?

[iLord]

Of course, we want to know the possibilities why MSSK is out of the game right now, right? [/sarcasm]

[iLord]

I'm just saying that it's pointless. Speculating is looked down upon because it doesn't help the town, and gives MSSK possible false claim ideas (if he is scum) and gives the Mafia clues as the his abilities and the such, especially with people making it obvious that they have no idea what's going on.

Sorry if the comment sounded snid, I didn't mean it for that way.

[iLord]

I'm pretty sure its MSSK voting, as he's not shown in the not voting area like before.

@Zaz: I really don't think Coheed's speculation is indictive of scum - with my limited meta on him in an ongoing game, where he was lynched town.

SP just seems like he wants something to talk about. He's a relatively new player, so I'm inclined to say another null tell here.

[iLord]

Its too early for me to comment on the players. Once we get a few more pages I may have something.

It's not too early to comment on the actions of players.

[iLord]

Regarding post 60:
I don't trust meta.
And it's unfair to say that my point against SP is a null tell. He may be a relative new player (is he?), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't use it against him. He made an anti-town action in my eyes and I'm not going to write it down as a 'mistake'.

I don't know what to think about that post of yours yet.

You can’t make a case without looking at meta – each person has their own set of scum and town tells. Speculation just isn’t one of Coheed’s scumtells.

You can use your point – I just don’t consider it a scumtell. New players frequently want to talk too much, and so indulge in set-up speculation.

[iLord]

A case made on a definitive scummy action is better than a case made on meta tells. How about giving a read on me, iLord? You have 2 sources of meta on me, what does that tell you about me so far?

I'm not particularly fond of using meta to spearhead accusations (votes), they serve their purpose in guiding one's role abilities rather.

Currently I'm willing to put down what CoCam and SP have posted as RV stage crap, not worth much now but will be looked into after a flip.

You haven't done anything that has been sticking out to me. Meta spearheading accusations is weak. However, you must need meta to back up an accusation for it to be valid. Each player is different, there are none or very few "universal scumtells."

You're right that definitive scummy action is better than meta. But meta determines what is scummy for each player.

"After a flip?"

[iLord]

The RV stage is full of useful breadcrumbs/things to take out of context since no one really takes anything said in that stage seriously. After a flip, one can get working on the little things that have been nagging them from the subconscious.

"Flip?"

I'll concede to meta under a very special circumstance: the player in question does not even know that a particular action of theirs is a meta tell. Only if they are unaware of their habits, can the meta be 100% effective against them.

Concede to who? A main focus of my last post is that I was not pushing to use Meta as a tell. Meta defines the tells.

This could be taken a little ambiguously, somewhat circular logic.

Do elaborate as I'm afraid I don't see what you are talking about. What I'm saying is that what is scummy for a player determines on how that player's individual playstyle.

[iLord]

So no meta = no tells for you?

If meta was that important, Natirasha should be first lynch every game, no questions asked.

Ah, I got the flip thing. Never heard it used like that before, but it seems obvious now.

Without meta, one must use newb tells, and even still, you should be figuring out how that player players as you play with him.

Of course, sometimes we are all lazy and circumvent looking at meta - No one has the time to look up some meta on everyone they attack. I myself have been guilty of this.

But now that I have experience with Coheed, I can easily use his meta.l

Why Natirisha?

[iLord]

Why does that indicate that he needs be lynched according to my prinicples?

[iLord]

Meta is how he plays, not how he says he plays, or how often he's been scum.

[iLord]

Ironically, I've been non-town more than town.

Yeah, but to using that to discern your alignment in a game would by Gambler's Fallacy.

[iLord]

I was speculating because no one else had posted anything, and as such all I could do was speculate on something that I was thinking about. I really don't see how that makes me scum.

That's no reason to speculate at all. It's antitown, as I explained in a post a while back.

[iLord]

Be that as it may, I don't see it as any reason to lynch me. To me someone who would lynch another person on that sort of case is even scummier.

Well, generally, players that act antitown get lynched or under heavy suspicion.

[iLord]

asdfasdf

I think meta doesn't prove a thing. I normally ask many questions in the games I play. Does that make me scum in the one game where I didn't focus on asking questions, but on starting cases?
Meta isn't helpful when the player knows what he does when he's pro-town. And many players know what they do when they are pro-town and use this as well when they are anti-town.

Besides, iLord. I'm having the feeling that you base this on one game (your meta argument of CC09). I don't know how you call this in English, but if this is true then you're guilty of making a 'overhaaste generalisatie'. This means that you're concluding things from one experience (or something like that). And a 'overhaaste generalisatie' isn't counted as a reliable argument. It's in fact a 'drogreden'. I've learned you some things today .

Meta itself doesn't prove anything. Meta defines scumtells. In your case, no that would not be a scumtell because asking questions isn't antitown. The converse is not always true - something antitown is not always indictive of scum alignment.

You're right that one experience is not enough. If I can piece together some extra time, I'll look at some more of Coheed's games.

@ ZazieR: you do realize I wasn't the only one speculating, multiple people were, so don't just be looking at me, it was a "collective" speculation taking place.

"But everyone else did it!"

That's scummy - I really need to look at your games, but for now:

Vote: Coheed

I think meta only works for patterns and if you should only get a nulltell from it. Nat's self vote being one of them, he always does it and voting him for such is just weak. Granted I did it in my first game with him but that is when I learned of his meta.

Scumtell meta's I do not like. I enjoy being able to play each game differently if I so choose, meta's do not allow for that.

Scumtell metas are basically the opposite of nulltells. If you do something antitown that you don't usually do as town, then that's a scum tell. You can still play differently, as long as you don't play antitown differently.

Looking into Coheed - perhaps another post soon.

[iLord]

I understand what you are saying and I can see how it would give scum away but is that really how you want to play your games? That would make the game not as much fun for me atleast. To each his own I guess

It's really the "correct" way to play.

Often, we are all lazy and skip this step.

[iLord]

In other news: *cough* Tar games need unvotes. *cought* This means you iLord. *cough* - Tar

Really sorry - I keep forgetting.

Unvote, Vote CoheedCambrian09

[iLord]

@ ilord: Meta-ing me won't help as I usually play differently every game. Go ahead though, I just thought I should point that out.

You're not gaining any townie points for saying this.

If I have time, I'm going to look to see if you have ever done something like this before as town.

[iLord]

Where is everyone?

Let's go on a little experiment:

MSSK, if you can move your vote, please change your vote to me.

[iLord]

iLord, what is the point in trying to get MSSK to change his vote?

Actually, I was trying to figure out if MSSK was actually controlling the vote.

[iLord]

Look who's rolefishing now?

Agreed.

Zas, "Does" is better than "Why"

[iLord]

@Zasier:

If you look at my post, I asked why you asked "Why" rather than "Does"

[iLord]

Just to be clear, if Zas was just asking whether or not Mathuis knew anything about the double vote, that would've been fine. However, since he was asking about why, he was asking more about Mathuis's role, which is suspicious role speculating.

I don't really like SilverPhoenix trying to use this "contradiction" as evidence to back his nomcommital stand on this possible wagon.

[iLord]

I think I have stayed out of this way too much but I have to ask. Why is trying to figure out the possible roles so bad? I know it helps out scum to figure out what they are up agianst but at the same time more information the town has the better.

Knowing the roles when the time is due is good.

The time is not due yet. (Think about why we're not mass-claiming)

Speculating does not give us information on roles.

Only gives scum information on who has no idea what's going on, and who might actually be a power role.

[iLord]

I'm noncommital because there is barely anything there, just like the accusations based on my speculation barely have a base. There is absolutely no reason for me to "commit" a vote on a bare case, especially at this early point in the game. It is a slight suspicion, (hence the FoS), and not much more, possibly a part of a case later on, but not enough for a vote right now. Unvote because it looks like we are actually putting value into votes now.

And I wouldn't say ZazieR is a possible wagon by any means. Only one vote? Seriously...

Let's take a look at your post:

That is where the contradiction comes from. What I was doing before is the same as what you were doing just now. The point is I don't find it scummy, but you did, yet you used it anyway. Scum generally are the ones to contradict their own strategies in a game. A FoS: ZazieR for now.

First of all, you attempt to use Zas's action to defende yourself without fullying understanding or stating why Zas's action is scummy - it's different from the one you imply by stating the "contradiction."

"A FOS: ZasieR for now"

"For now" - ready to spring on if a wagon develops.

Alternatively, you can also spring off if this wagon fails, demonstrating how noncommittal your attack is.

[iLord]

First, I never said I wasn't noncommittal. You definitely missed the point I made in the post you quoted.
Second, I don't particularly find what he was asking of SSK really scummy, but I find the contradiction that he makes with his past position sort of scummy. It's the kind of tell that you incorporate into a larger case down the road to see if he repeats his flip-floppiness or if he does other scummy things, but certainly not the kind of tell that I would vote for.

So yes, I am being noncommittal, because there isn't much substance in the case. You could argue that cases this early don't need much substance, but they are all still diving boards for the larger cases down the road that catch scum. This diving board is just a little small for me.

I see.

Do you believe that Zas should be pressured so that you can get a better read on him?

@Ooba: I'd say about a 4.

[iLord]

@ Malthusis: If that line at iLord is a breadcrumb of your role name, one character comes to mind and it's a scum character. Convince me otherwise or I'll vote.

Very confused.

[iLord]

SP, did you understand Pesco's post?

Since you know a lot about it?

[iLord]

By it, I mean the Legend of Zelda canon.

[iLord]

I didn't catch it either. I'm relooking over ZazieR's post right now, because I don't see the slip on malthusis' end.

Ah, okay.

[iLord]

How many other characters could be double voters? Double voting could be given to a variety of characters for a variety of reason (any importnat mayors or kings, or like SP said, excpetionally loud people even).

You can't use this basis to instantly ask for claim.

Mathuis needs to confirm or deny that he is Twinrova, though. That wouldn't cause any harm.

[iLord]

The double vote issue would be better to be explained then if confirming his name or not. If he knew he would be lynched if he said he was Twinrova then why in the world would he say he is. No matter what I think he would say he is not. Giveing a reason as to why he has 2 votes would be better so atleast we know he can issue out 2 votes. This would not claim if he is scum or not.

First of all, I would like to give Mathuis no further information about how to style his claim, although you have given enough that the Twinrova thing might be useless.

Second of all, he doesn't appear to have a choice - his vote is just doubled. He has already confirmed that he has the double vote.

[iLord]

Where did he confirm that? He has not posted all the much and I didnt see anything other then the one hint.

Here:

@Zazier: Let's just say if I told you, you'd have a good idea of who I'd be.

[iLord]

Pesco needs to explain why he thought double vote was enough to try and force a claim.

[iLord]

Pesco, that's just reaching.

Double Vote =/= Doubling ability in game just because the roles are "especially on flavr."

Zas is right about not focusing on flavor.

[iLord]

Let's remember to keep that in mind when someone claims before their flip.

What does that have to do with anything?

I will keep this conversation in mind when

you

claim, however.

[iLord]

I'm going to have to agree with Zas here. I don't thin we should focus on the flavors because this game is structured so much differently than other mafia games that it will most likely accomplish nothing.

Could you explain how this game's unique structure discourages us from basing stuff on flavor?

[iLord]

Coheed, you are so obviously reaching:

The game mechanic as I understand it is set in two time periods, the past, and the future. I think that we shouldnt base things on flavor because in OoT their is a drastic difference IMO between the two time periods. The past is young link and everything is fairly good and happy= flavor more good and light-hearted whereas the future is controlled by evil so I'm assuming that the flavor in the future will be more dark and evil.

What did that paragraph have anything to do with why we shouldn't have set-up speculation?

But what time period are we in right now? I never figured that out

We're in the past.

[iLord]

I don't think I said don;t speculate about the set-up, I said don't use things based on flavor because the flavor IMO changes with the time period.

But each time period has set flavor.

So why can't we based things on flavor relative to each world? You're not really supporting that statement.

[iLord]

Also, iLord, why did you say the last sentence? I don't get it either (maybe my brain isn't working today).

So when Pesco claims, we can see if his role is actually really based on flavor.

I'm willing to bet that flavour abilities carry over to our functional abilities (as per my own role as a reference). If Malthusis can make a plausible claim to a character that is not Ganon-aligned and explains his double-vote, I'll accept that he may not be scum.

No way - you're pushing for a claim on way too flimsy evidence. LIke we have said, there's loads of roles that could have double votes.

Unvote, Vote: CoheedCambria
Proxy: iLord for sake of a lynch.

???

[iLord]

Malthusis does not bother me. I did miss that Pesco was asking for a character. I don't see what good a character would do other than put to rest Pesco's ridiculous suspicions.

It's a judgment call for Mathuisis - claiming his character could possiblity harm to the town, but they don't appear to be catastrophic.

Deadline's in four days! Still suspecting Coheed, but I don't know who else I would want lynched.

[iLord]

I'm horribly confused. I can still tell that Pesco is pushing ridiculously hard for his claim based on a double vote and flavor speculation.

Can someone explain to me what Mathuis's last post was saying?

[iLord]

Guys, we need a majority of voting people before the deadline - everybody unvote their random votes and vote who you want lynched - we don't want a no lynch.

[iLord]

Not very strong, but I'd much rather lynch him than anyone else at this point:

I'm voting him mostly because of his comment in his defense for speculating, basically saying "You can't only attack me - everyone else was doing it too! Attack them" if I recall correctly.

[iLord]

Let's assume that CoCam suddenly also gets banished to the sacred realm. Who would you want to lynch now?

You.

[iLord]

Got a case?

Not really, given it's weaker than the single point I have against Coheed.

Basically because of your pushing for Mathuis to claim. The action is completely anti-town, but I can't really tell if you are scum because of it.

[iLord]

So, pretty much, I'm most likely going to get lynched on one, really really really weak point.

It doesn't merit that many "really's", or the "weak."

It can be pro-town in forcing a scum to claim blind. How is asking for Malt to claim his character anti-town?

The same reason a Day 1 Mass Claim is bad.

[iLord]

Because the initial votes are random and not based on anything. To keep them serves no real purpose. It bothers me but I do not think it is a scum tell or anything. Also shows that they are not trying to vote scum. Either they are just leaving their vote out there to seem like they are trying or just too lazy or see no purpose in changing it. It could be a number of reasons. The only way I can think it would become a scum tell would be if the person left the vote there and that person was lynched without the person making it known it was no longer a random vote.

It's not scummy, but it's certainly antitown because

at the deadline, we have to have a majority of people voting on a single player. So, as of now, we will no lynch

because so many people have their random votes still.

Name claim and Role claims are different things.

Day 1 Mass Name claim is still bad.

[iLord]

So if deadline happened now, CoheedCambria will be lynched, since the majority of voting players are voting for him.

No, the majority of voting players has not reached a majority.

Mod, can you clarify on how lynches at the deadline work?

Since it apparently isn't self-explanatory, let's try it this way: at deadline, votes that are not used are not counted for the purposes of establishing a majority. (In other words, if 5 votes are not being used at deadline are not voting at deadline and there are 12 votes in play, then it takes 4 votes to lynch.)

Reminder - it takes a majority of votes in play to lynch. - Tar

@Pesco: If I name claim, I shall literally die tonight (and if I lie, you'll lynch me anyways because of it).

/facepalm.

Vou've already given the scum almost as much information as if you had claimed.

[iLord]

Nat needs to explain why she said Proxy was part of her role.

Why does this bother me that much? I know. Malthusis, do you see it as well?

It is very interesting. Mod needs to make another vote count.

Everybody needs to unvote Pesco unless he is counterclaimed.

We don't want to no lynch tommorrow. UNVOTE your votes!

[iLord]

unvote: vote:CoheedCambria

I'll die for the town to move forward.

You're a good man.

[iLord]

That sincere or sarcastic?

Sincere. If you're scum, you just avoided abusing the deadline system. If you're town, you just avoided a no lynch.

The action itself is a null tell, however.

Unvote, Vote: CoheedCambria09
For the good of town! Yeah!....
We'll see how this goes....

FOS: SP

Reading really scummy.

Would unvote Coheed if it weren't for the deadline.

[iLord]

@SP: I was attacking you for "we'll see how it goes."

That read scummy.

Voting's fine.

[iLord]

"ZONEACE is thinking ZONEACE's scum?"

That's weird - normally I would vote on a Cop Investigation, but that doesn't quite sound like a infallible Cop Investigation. I would also like to hear what ZONEACE has to say about his thoughts.

Could you elucidate about the Mask of Truth's role at the dog-lady place?

[iLord]

Vote: ZONEACE

"Maybe I'm a miller" is about the only thing scum can say, other than attacking or counterclaiming the cop. If ZONEACE turns up town, then Pesco's in hot water for tommorrow, so it's a weak gambit for scum.

I need to read over ZONEACE's "defense" more clearly, but right now my read it is caught scum.

SP's post came off as really sketchy, and I'll read over and elaborate later - I'm sort of pressed for time.

[iLord]

I don't think banished means they can return - why would a Mafia go to the "banished" place then?

It might be the otherway around.

I'm going to go look back at the reactions - ZONEACE gave us a wealth of information on the way out (in reactions.)

[iLord]

asdfasdf

You're point?
The only sage I could think of who would have thought 'I'm bad' would have been that sand girl. But 'he' is already dead.

But I actually think there's one Sage who could be scum. No wonder if your heart gets broken.

Zas, what was your thought process around this post? No vote?

What a direct contradiction. Tell me exactly what you mean by your earlier comment.

Attacks him...

I like that defense, except for what you find the "most relevant". How is that relevant? Someone accuses you of being scum and you distance yourself from a previous argument you made? That isn't the best thing to do if you were town at all. Makes me believe more that you are scum.

"isn't the best thing to do if you were town at all?"
"Makes me believe more that you are scum?"
"I like that defense, except?"

SP is so hesitant to call him scum that I noted it even in my brief scanning yesterday. Looks like a hesitant bus, in my view

Vote: SP

-------------------------------------

After ZONEACE flipped, Pesco was pretty confident it wasn't a sanity problem, which is odd, and I would like him to explain.

Reading along, I could've sworn that ZONEACE was town based on how he acted before Tar posted. I feel that a nonbussing Pesco would've at least mentioned it. Pesco?

ZONEACE, it's pretty simple right now.

If you're town

, you give your final thoughts instead of going on with your discussion with Pesco. If you're scum, discuss further with Pesco.
I gladly want to hear your thoughts if you're town and use them the next day, but then you have to give them. And yes, I agree with you that the others shouldn't have lynched you that soon. But that's not a reason to post like that.

Did no one else get fooled as much as I did? Zas could you explain your thought process here?

But what's up with this

quick (and possibly mis-) lynching

? Guys, seriously be more careful, especially now that we absolutely know that we have a double-voter. What a freaking disaster.

Anyone?

--------------------------------------------------

Thinking SP's the top suspect. Confused about Pesco.

[iLord]

asdfasdf

You are drawing up your entire case on my hesitancy? The hesitancy that has been with me the entire game? The hesitancy that was there for both the town lynch on D1 and the scum lynch on D2? That proves that my hesitancy has nothing to do with the alignment of suspects. Townies are far from infallible, as we witnessed on D1, so I never completely trust my instincts at any one moment in the game, nor do I ever completely trust any townie (confirmed, claimed, or assumed) for that matter.
You have a sure-fire way of playing: you settle on a target you think is scum and rain down arguments until he's lynched. While I find that an admirable trait for a townie, townies that think they are absolutely right for any period of time in a game are the ones that hurt the town the most, as their view tunnels and they ignore potentially better targets, often until it is too late. Your instincts about ZONEFACE and Coheed are only right if you know the information ahead of time, and are not vindicated by their cardflip if you didn't know the info ahead of time.

Hesitancy vs. your prodding of him at the same time - weak scum busses most often consist of "he looks scum here, and he did this scummy, so we should probably lynch him." Especially with the hesitancy in your playstyle - it matchs the picture perfectly.

@iLord: I don't quite get what you're asking me. Rephrase pls?

Why did you never question your sanity?

@iLord: In your post 304, you said that you thought ZONEACE was scum. Then, you just said in post 334 that you thought ZONEACE was town. Did you change your mind after he was lynched?
(also, I don't get the part you directed at Pesco either. What do you mean by "Pesco was pretty confident it wasn't a sanity problem, which is odd"?)
And I would like to see your response to SP's post, too.

A lot of posts pasted in between - I thought ZONEACE was town, but then he flipped out extremely convincingly in my opinion.

When I'm town and the game is in twilight, I want to share my thoughts. That way, the town can still use my thoughts and opinions even after I'm dead. When ZONEACE refused to do so, it gave me the impression that he was scum. However, it wasn't revealed at that time so I wasn't sure about it. That's why I tried to convince him into giving his thoughts if he was town. But now I know why he didn't.

But what was your point in bolding?

What I was trying to get to is how you felt about ZONEACE's alignment after you flipped out.

[iLord]

Why should I want to consider my sanity being an issue? Link could plausibly be naive, but I got a guilty result so that one is pretty clear.

The Mask of Truth could not flavorfully be fooled?

ZONEACE's role could just be insane?

Did you not find ZONEACE's performance convincing enough to even think about the possiblity of your sanity being not sane?

[iLord]

This isn't a game of Dethy. There was no reason to consider sanity.

There is a reason to consider it if your target claims town after being voted past the lynch threshhold.

Now why do scum bus? One of two reasons. The first, and most often, is that the two are tied together so much that if one flipped scum, the other would too. The second, and much weaker, is to appear more town by advocating the lynch of a known scum.
Not to sound vain, but I'm not that stupid as to make myself appear "more town". I have nothing to prove to the town, I am innocent until proven guilty by mod or otherwise.
Also, I wasn't sold at all on the ZONEFACE lynch, as quoted below.

I don't get what you are saying - are you saying that you will never bus?

Although parts of his play were scummy, I wasn't sold. If I was, I would have gladly voted for him. I don't see the problem with that. I have hesitant this game because frankly I haven't seen a whole lot of meaty stuff to dig into. I guess a reread is in order, but hesitancy is never a sure scum tell.

You have to understand that it's not just the hesitancy - it's the awkward combanation of trying to attack and get ready to jump off if the wagon doesn't look like it's going to succeed.

How does that affect Pesco's investigation?

The sanity of Pesco's role rests on his target being sane enough to consider himself town.

[iLord]

asdfasdf

It's not a question of whether I think the wagon will succeed, but rather a question if I think they are scummy enough. In both cases, I didn't think so, even though there were parts about both players that I found scummy. I have controlled my vote somewhat tightly in this game; I am not voting and unvoting like crazy, which is really the true sign of attack hesitancy. I've have had mixed feelings about people in this game so far, and I don't see myself really attacking people (I haven't really made a strong case on anyone yet) or jumping on wagons (only voted Coheed after voting himself, didn't vote for ZONEFACE).

You didn't think a guilt investigation was scummy enough? What do you need, then?

I more or less meant that I feel I don't have to prove myself to the town for being town. I guess it is more WIFOM than anything, as if I were scum, would I want to distance myself from a partner that is getting lynched or just keep my mouth shut about him? Considering my playstyle, I would prefer the second choice, as it offers the least information. But that doesn't really matter: what matters is that calling my play a bus is pretty much WIFOM.

You're not reducing my point to WIFOM - that can be used on almost all scum behavior ("If he knew this was scummy, then why would he do it?")

Since I misvoted (Sorry, Tar!):

Vote: SilverPhoenix

]

Well, doesn't that mean that ZONEFACE have to be a cop? He flipped tracker, but I somewhat doubt that he would be an insane tracker.

Sanity flavorwise. And Pesco wouldn't know what ZONEACE would flip.

Wait, do you mean you thought ZONEACE was scum before he flipped out?

Yeah.

But Pesco, why did you investigate ZONEACE?

This.

[iLord]

Pesco, why did you not question your sanity after ZONEACE claimed town after being lynched?

[iLord]

I trust my results to be accurate. There was no reason for me to doubt what I had been given. Why is that an issue after the flip has shown that my sanity is sane?

I'm trying to figure out why you didn't doubt your sanity before. A player who has been lynched has no reason to lie if his alignment is about to be revealed. ZONEACE claimed town,

after he knew that his alignment was going to be revealed.

Why did you not as so much bring up the sanity issue? "I trust my results to be accurate" is not good enough, even if you don't take into account that this is a Tar game, "trust" does not stand anything against a player who has no reason to lie.

[iLord]

But wait, ZONEACE did lie, because he flipped scum. So what are you trying to get at here?

But in twilight, you didn't even mention the possilbility of sanity issues. You were way too sure of ZONEACE's alignment,

when he claimed town when he shouldn't have any reason to lie.

I'm trying to figure out why you were willing to trust that your role was sane over a player who claimed town in twilight.

[iLord]

Well, considering that we have been considering this sanity issue for going on three pages, isn't that enough skepticism about Pesco's role? Like I said, I found them somewhat scummy but not completely enough. In light of ZazieR's vote above, it goes to show that there are way too many people in this game that throw around their votes lightly based on little suspicion. I don't see what is scummy about wanting more to go on.

We haven't been considering the sanity issue - we've been looking at Pesco's mindset.

If a guilty investigation isn't scummy enough for a vote, then what is?

Okay, so you ask for me what I meant, and when I tell you, you tell me that's not what I meant. I call that entrapment. It's low, it's false, and it's scummy. FoS: iLord.

That's not entrapment - you're trying to reduce my point against you as WIFOM, and I caught you.

Nice job trying to discourage me with a pesudo-OMGUS - it's not going to work. Also kudos to trying to attack me, instead of my argument.

[iLord]

Why are you railing against Pesco for trusting his sanity on his role while railing against me for not voting on a guilty investigation? Contradiction, contradiction...

This is so weak, if you even bothered to read the actual arguments - now you're just flailing.

I'm attacking you for not voting on a guilty result.

I'm attack Pesco for not considering sanity when said guilty result claimed town after he had been lynched, when he had no reason to lie, not to mention his convincing performance of a pissed off townie.

I'm happy with my vote.

[iLord]

You sound like you still think ZONEACE is town after the flip and all.

I suggest you answer my questions.

[iLord]

What good reason is there for me not to believe my role PM? What good reason are you still believing ZONEACE is town after he's flipped scum AND modkilled in the manner most damaging to a scum faction?

You're still avoiding the point - why would you not believe that you were insane once ZONEACE claimed town after he was lynched?

I do not believe ZONEACE is town - he's scum and he was modkilled. But at the time, no one had any reason not to believe ZONEACE's claim that he was town. If I would've posted in that period, I would've stated that you were scum and I neeeded an explanation for your "result."

This is not about ZONEACE's alignment now. It's about what you should've viewed ZONEACE's alignment after he was lynched.

[iLord]

Why should I believe anything he was saying? After he was lynched what's me backing out on my decision going to do for him? If every cop suddenly thought 'Hey guys, I might be insane' at every town claim from a guilty, the player might as well be a vanilla and not use their ability.

You need to stop with this pointless issue of my investigation reliability. If your ultimate goal is just to say that I bussed ZONEACE, then say it straight and present a better case.

Pay attention to what I'm saying - I can't even tell if you're doing this on purpose.

I'm talking about

after he was lynched. Once a player is lynched, he has no reason to lie if his alignment's going to be revealed soon

especially if he explodes in apparent anger like ZONEACE did.

[iLord]

I don't think you're insane - if you're a cop, you're probably sane.

What I'm saying is why didn't you question your own sanity when ZONEACE claimed town after the lynch.

[iLord]

Like I said many times before; I had no reason to question my sanity. I believed my results over everything he was saying or going to say.

Why would you believe your possibly insane role over a claimed townie that has just been lynched? That's not logical at all?

The reason to question your sanity was that your target claimed town after being lynched, and exploded.

[iLord]

Where do you want to go with this? You've been wording your questions to try and get me to say that I'm insane and my results can't be trusted. This has gone on long enough.

Vote iLord

There's no way this is accidental - you're doing this on purpose

I'm saying nothing about your insane - if your a cop, I believe that you are sane and that your results can be trusted - I've stated so

multiple times

already.

We're talking about your mindset in the past.

A question you apparently don't have an answer to.

Voting me first won't do anything - unless you want me to believe that you bussed ZONEACE, answer my question, and stop acting like you don't understand it.

[iLord]

Logical townie process should be:

1. I got guilty on a player.
2. Claim guilty on player in thread.
3. Said player says he's innocent.
4. Ignore him and get him lynched.
5. After he is lynched, he still says that he is town.
6. He does not have any reason to lie - his alignment's about to be revealed and he's already lynched - it's twilight.
7. Therefore, I must assume that he's not lying.
8. And so, I must not be sane, or ZONEACE had a millerish role.
9. I ask ZONEACE why does he have a role that turns up guilty to my cop result, or speculate that I could be insane, since my result was apparently false.

You didn't go through 6-9.

Why?

[iLord]

EBWOP: I don't think anyone else understands your question either.

Other than Malt, no ones's commented on it.

[iLord]

Pesco, why can't I see you in "Users online" section on the bottom of the main page where it shows everyone that's on?

[iLord]

6. He was acting out of line by that stage. Intentionally being unco-operative and unhelpful. Most importantly, continuing to lie.
7. Null point since he was still lying.
8. I believe my results over him.
9. We did ask, he refused to tell.

Just because you are right now, does not make it a null point before. All of what you listed could very plausibiliy be a frustrated townie tell - much more likely than a scum player blowing up and still claiming town after lynched.

You asked, but you didn't mention the possiblity of you being insane.

Because nobody else understands it either.

What makes you draw that conclusion?

This is of no importance to the game.

Yes, it is. I want to know when you are online and avoid my questions.

No, it's not. - Tar

--------------------------------------------------

You're tone has gotten a lot more cold under pressure. Why?

[iLord]

Invisbility setting is on. You can't find me in Users Online, either.

I figured something like that.

And in that regard, I would like Pesco to please remove that setting, unless he has reasons to keep it.

[iLord]

Is having that setting on a scum-tell in your opinion now? I'm getting frustrated at what you're not saying in plain language.

Good job not answering any of my points.

No it's not a scumtell - I didn't ask Nat to remove his setting. I would like to know when you're on and when you're avoiding my questions.

You anger is very telling - the more I talk to you, the more I think that you were busing ZONEACE.

[iLord]

asdfasdf

And now it's okay for ZONEACE to get angry and 'be townie' while I can't have that same benefit of the doubt?

You haven't had any reason. A townie in ZONEACE's position would have right to be angry - he was lynched before he could even claim!

If I had to follow your 9-step procedure for cops, I'd be jumping to some wild conclusions about my own role. You think it's how a cop should be playing, I don't. I'll believe what the mod tells me over what any other player says.

What a player who should be confirmed and should have no reason to lie! What ZONEACE did is by no way good play - it was pointless, and it even gave us a wealth of information to use with.

I would most definitely not trust the sanity of a cop over a player who continues to claim town after there was no use for doing so.

That's too much of an insistence there. The lynched player must be right and I can't be? No matter what anyone believed about him then, that misconception should be corrected by the time a flip came around.

Yes. The lynched player has no reason to lie. The mod may have reason to lie to you or ZONEACE.

The misconception has been revealed. I'm asking why that misconception wasn't there in the first place.

My current assumptions now are:
Scum can not perform their kill until it's Future Phase
Therefore, not being able to NK the cop they have to call bussing.

I've put ZONACE's final actions into perspective and concluded that he was probably most angry at his buddies bussing him too quickly. The main suspects being Malt (putting at L-1) and iLord (the hammer). Working to discredit the cop at any way possible is their best means of getting rid of me while they have no means to change the phase in their favour.

That's a very unlikely scenario you've construed there - scum don't get a nightkill? And have no way to get them?

You don't need to worry about me lurking for the rest of the day. Mod prods exist for that reason. It shouldn't matter when I'm online or not, I'll post when I intend to speak up. And since this game still has 7 other people who should be active, let's see more posts from them.

Okay.

Sorry, Tar.

Actually, I agree with Pesco, iLord.

If I was a cop, I'd just think he is lying. I think vollkan created a thread in MD before hand about this type of thing a while back...

Really?

He was angry about the whole thing, so he went kicking and screaming with personal attacks and whatnot. That is about the best reason to lie as I can see. Not everything in a game turns out the way you expect. That is why you cannot rely complete on "standard" tells in order to find scum. Games have unexpected events, period. I think simply that ZONEFACE implying that he was town after his lynch was one of those. The entire argument is fallacious under No True Scotsman.

Your misrepresenting my argument again.

There's nothing about "standard" tells here.

Personal attacks are not a reason - ZONEACE does not further his win condition in anyway by doing what he did, and we should've at least considered that he was trying to fulfill his win con.

What's the difference between him responding to your arguments 10 minutes or 10 hours after you make them? It sounds like you want him to slip up by getting angry and wanting him to respond quickly.

The difference is the fact that he is avoiding my questions.

@iLord: I'm not getting why you say that Pesco is a sane cop, but then try to discredit her results at every turn. Are you saying she is a sane cop (which makes your discussion absolutely void), or that she's scum (say why).

You're not understanding what I'm saying (Pesco's right )

I'm saying that Pesco is sane and that he should trust his results right now. That doesn't void this discussion at all, which is about what Pesco should've assumed before.

[iLord]

PMS and the way you've been posing circular questions has been reason enough.

Sorry - I haven't tried to be aggravating, but I realized that I may have been a little impatient with you not understanding my question.

Zas has got my question right.

Pesco and raider apparently don't share my views.

raider, why must you not worry about something else?

Pesco, why would you not trust someone that has no reason to lie over the mod who may have a reason to lie?

[iLord]

@andersonw: I was figuring out whether or not Pesco bussed ZONEACE - that's the only reason why she would be so sure about his alignment.

@Pesco: Perhaps ZONEACE was an unconscious miller? Of course, you cannot be sure until the flip, but before then, surely you have your doubts?

[iLord]

Nat, you misunderstand what I'm saying.

I'm saying that Pesco should not have been so sure of ZONEACE's alignment before the flip.

I understand ZONEACE is scum.

I also understand that if Pesco is cop, he is probably sane.

I'm attacking his mindset, and not his role.

[iLord]

So...you are actively saying that a cop should inherently doubt his sanity in a theme game?

No, I'm talking after ZONEACE was lynched, when he had no reason to lie and continued to claim town.

The cop should at least have second thoughts.

[iLord]

Let me go find the vollkan thread.

That would actually help. Much thanks.

[iLord]

Looking at it now...

[iLord]

Nat, I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this relates to my point.

[iLord]

That he lied after death that he was town, while being mafia. Now, the context is slightly different, but the basic idea is the same.

But what does that have to do with Pesco's mindset? Are you saying we should expect plays like Volkan's?

[iLord]

I must note that in a regular game, Volkan's play would not offer any benefit to the scum.

[iLord]

I would.

Would you not voice any doubts about your sanity had you been thrust in Pesco's situation?

[iLord]

Why are you pushing this so hard iLord? I still don't really see why this matters at all. I'm also in league with Nat in saying that in games and especially Tar's games in general, I usually don't take anything for granted unless the mod says it.

Because it matters.

Um, Nat's saying to take sanity for granted, which is to opposite of what you seem to be saying.

iLord's post #423. Misquote again, something that another person is saying and crediting it to me. I can not believe someone like you could make a typo from 'Nat' to Pesco'.

Let us remember that ZONEACE ws modkilled for jackassery. Lying when he had no reason to under twilight is a possible offense. My feeling was not to trust him and just as he had no reason to lie, I have no reason to disbelieve the mod in giving me accurate results.

Sorry about the misquote - believe it or not, I do it a lot.

I personally can not see how anyone would not trust a person who was lynched (I mean, you're right, he got modkilled for it! Are you saying that you expected him to try and get himself modkilled?), but my mindset appears to not be as common as I would've thought.

[iLord]

Another note - where was SP in all of this? Is he in V/LA?

[iLord]

Who else promised posts?

[iLord]

@AW: I don't think it's conclusive - I haven't vote Pesco. I didn't even think it was that big of a deal until I thought Pesco was pretending to not understand ther question and she started getting mad.

I'm confused about the SP things.

[iLord]

I'm back.

And I've caught up.

I don't get how Pesco can by he mixed up Tracker/Watcher. I can understand mixing up the abilities of the two, but to use them interchangeablely after being exposed to this site for as long as SP has been in, is quite improbable.

To show I'm reading what the mod posts....
Although I said tracker, watcher/tracker are pretty much the same role. They find what people do during the night.

"pretty much?"

"pretty much" =/= interchangeablely.

I'm pretty confident that you're lying. It doesn't help that I still believe you were busing ZONEACE.

[iLord]

I made a watcher/tracker mixup in another ongoing game here (no links, go find it yourself).

I'm still as suspicious of Malt as from the first day since he has now hammered twice, both times seemingly quite careless of the fact that he double votes.

I meant SP, sorry.

SP didn't mix them up - he says that he uses them interchangeablely, and so he says that they are the same.

However, the post I quoted specifically states that he realizes the two have a minor difference.

Hence my statement.

[iLord]

I still don't like how you can make that many name typos.

I'm trying to catch myself more often, but I still do it a lot.

[iLord]

I think it's a subtle trick you do to catch the people who only skim-read the posts.

I can assure you that it's not.

[iLord]

I think I simulposted with Zas, and I just understood that Malt just hammered again.

Malt needs to explain.

[iLord]

I'm confused as to Nat's suggestion and reasoning.

Why are you saying that we should MC?

MSSK needs to explain everything he can at his discretion.

Malt, what do you think about Nat's suggestion?

Coheed's scum! I'm looking back at something.

[iLord]

@Malt:

Answer why you hammered.

[iLord]

I didn't knew I hammered at the time. (By the time I noticed, it was obviously too late).

Regardless, you won't be allowed to do such again - keep track of your vote!

[iLord]

@MSSK: Is it worth asking who can change time?

[iLord]

Yes. If it is an instant day ability why hasn't it been used. Also, this power could be overpowered for scum, so this oculd probably confirm the player as town.

I liked it in the past. Knowing who is dangerous. There's no need to out them.

[iLord]

iLord: Who do you suspect most right now?

Same question for MafiaSSK, you haven't really contributed much of your thoughts to the game yet.

No idea - I need to reread.

I'm not very suprised - by the end of the conversation, it became evident that Pesco wasn't purposely misunderstanding my question and that he actually held the views he proposed.

@Zas: I don't get what you're trying to say.

[iLord]

Zazie, are you as clueless as I, as to who to pursue next?

[iLord]

@Ooba I would really like to hear what you have to say Mod: prod or replace if you can.

My theory is that the scum team's kill is done through light arrows (or it has no kill at all). There's only a few people in the series who had them, namely Zelda, Sheik and Link (and link is dead). Sheik is also a character that wasn't in the past in any form or way, and the killings started in the future. Therefore, SSK=Sheik=Scum or vig or any other killing role. You can see through this inference that Sheik shot Link (Who had claimed and had no reason to be doubted) which in my mind means SSK=anti-town.

This theory falls apart for me. You drew a lot of conclusions based on unconclusive evidence. I'll give you the assumption that the scumteam may kill with light arrows. I agree that Sheik is the only character who could have light arrows in this game, or that MSSK must be Sheik because he was banished.

I reread a bit, and out of the active posters, my top suspect is Zazie. Explanation and case after I make a case in another game.

[iLord]

MSSK, answer as to why you would want to know who can change between Past/Future?

[iLord]

@iLord: Isn't it obvious? He'll warp back out if it changes to the past again. On the same note SSK, I doubt they'll claim because it doesn't look like there's protective roles (and the reflector's down).

That's what I was saying - I wanted to know why he wanted to know "who" and whether or not he felt that it was worth it.

[iLord]

Which would you rather prefer, not playing at all or playing and getting sniped?

But which one would be for the greater good of the town?

[iLord]

Winning would be good. I assume everyone's win condition is the same reguardless of what time zone we are in. If we have less night kills in the past why would we stay in the future? Seems like town would have a better chance there.

I was asking MSSK and this is what I'm proposing to be the greater good of the town. I would like to hear MSSK's explanation.

[iLord]

@iLord
Where's the case?

It's coming, don't worry. I just have to finish the one in the other game first, since I said I'd do it before this one.

[iLord]

3.If I were scum I would have killed Pesco the second she claimed cop. That didn't happen in the past.

Scum killed him at the end of the Day she claimed, no?

Ilord on page 15-16 is really scummy, the general lack of anything by Raider is suspicious as well.

Could you elaborate?

[iLord]

Its like a retroactive chainsaw defense of Zoneace. Honestly, cop hit scum, what's your problem with that?

Did you not find Pesco's mindset worrying?

[iLord]

What? Are you saying that it's good if you get killed? Or am I just misunderstanding you?

No, he's saying that he prefers the future despite nightkills because he can actually play, but he acknowledges that for the greater good of the town, the past would be preferable.

[iLord]

Thank you for answering a question which I could have answered.

The answer was already there - he was asking for clarification.

He was a fucking cop with a guilty. What was worrying about that?

My suspicion was based on the fact that he didn't question said guilty after ZONEACE continued to claim town after the lynch.

Apparently, no one else would've questioned it either, which makes my point kind of null.

[iLord]

Why would anyone bother questioning it as the no one could unvote? The lynch was set in stone and everyone was just waiting for the mod to update. The point is beaten to death and we should move on.

raider, you're not paying attention.

Armlx is questioning my reasoninging, and I'm explaining.

After the lynch, Pesco continued to post with ZONEACE. In everyone of his posts, he was confident that ZONEACE would turn up scum - I'm questioning that confidence. It doesn't matter that no one could unvote and that the lynch was set.

[iLord]

Nat has a very good point.

FoS MafiaSSK

You'd better say your real role or else this will turn into a vote. I agree that Gold skellutulas were in the past as well.

Be careful with said vote.

I don't see any point of voting until MSSK claims his real role and explains why he lied.

[iLord]

Explain

[iLord]

I didn't know it lived in the past. I trusted Tar's flavor saying that I wasn't in the game in the past and decided that the Skulltula is not in the past. I did not do any research upon it.

Did you not play the game?

"I do not believe so" =/= "I don't know"

I don't think Tar would lie about the canon...

[iLord]

Vote: MafiaSSK

He's at L-2. Malt, DO NOT HAMMER!

[iLord]

Full claim and/or die plz.

Why don't you believe him?

[iLord]

I didn't actually play the game.

Then why did you pre-/in?

Past-Not a player
Future-Townie

Honestly, this role is incredibiliy unlikely. I support a lynch.

[iLord]

I'm not buying MSSK's role. The role he's claiming to have is extremely weak and useless - there's so much design space that Tar could use with the whole banishment thing that I don't believe he would waste it on such a boring role.

I'm ready to proceed to a lynch.

[iLord]

The unfortunate thing is I'm putting 2:1 odds on SSK being past scum given how Thar likes to think/make set ups, but I'm willing to lynch him regardless as such as I'm sure he's scum somehow.

I'm pretty sure Tar's a good mod.

The role MSSK is claiming is pretty inelegant and a waste of a good mechanic.

[iLord]

I'm very sure that he's not town, although he could easily be a neutral in my mind. Nevertheless, he's not town and he's a good lynch for today. Anyone has any final words before I lay the hammer?

What makes you think that he is neutral?

[iLord]

I am unhappy with SSK's responses. Not knowing if you have more abilities means that shows him being uncertain about his role. Did you delete the role PM or something? You should know if you have more abilities or is you are just a vanilla townie that does not exist in the past. Something is fishy.

Vote SSK

L-1

This post is fishy. It's too much rambling, and the vote is most definitely fake, since Malt has two votes and could've hammered - there's little point to voting and raider didn't even note this.

Vote: Raider8169

[iLord]

Votes required to lynch: 5

Is this correct?

Nope. Fixed. - Tar

[iLord]

[quote="raider']So I was not suppose to vote or have any say in the matter? You are not making any sense. [/quote]

Malt was asking people whether or not he should hammer - instead of telling him that it was okay to hammer, you merely voted him, without mentioning Malt.

There's something fishy about that, as well as in the rambling phrasing of the comment.

[iLord]

Why would I say it is ok to hammer without voting myself? Malt can do whatever he wants with his votes I do not control him nor does he need approval from me to vote. You are not making any sense.

I'm making perfect sense. Why would you vote instead of telling Malt that you approve of the hammer. Your vote means nothing, and I believe that Malt was just looking for the okay to end the day - a query you did not even mention. That plus the fishiness of the post is really scummy.

[iLord]

Why is it doing that?

[iLord]

Quote tags were off.

Yeah, I see now.

[iLord]

So your problem is simply because I voted when I didnt need to. I could have just told malt to vote instead? Thats a bad issue to push. Instead of doing the scummy thing and telling someone else to hammer and not voting myself I did the right thing and nullified his double vote.

No, that's the pratical thing to do - why is nullifying his double vote the right thing? If you wanted MSSK lynched, then you would've told Malt that it was okay to hammer, instead of not even mentioning it.

I agree that is what I could have done. Why would that have been the better action? Why would my not voting have been a good thing? Why is there a problem with me taking action instead of having someone else do it? Why would my post be fishy if I didnt even need to vote? You could delete that post and NOTHING would have changed. I still do not understand why this is any bit of an issue. Push that I was part of lynching a townie, push that my post was only fishy but pushing that my vote was unneeded is just crap. I am starting to think you are just trying to set up the next lynch and hoping people would go along.

Because voting was meaningless - It didn't add pressure or have value - the only use of it was a symbol. If you had wanted MSSK lynched, you would've told Malt that you supported the hammer. See - the action you took was meaningless - you knew that and have conceded it. If you had told Malt that you supported a hammer, then that would've actually meant something.

"I am starting to think you are scum" is the most common scum line of defense I've seen - not only is your notion ridiculous (Why would people "just go with it?"), it's completely scummy - it's the scummy kind of OMGUS. I'm going to look in a few more of your games - that's definitely a strong scumtell if you're one to post like that.

iLord, why are you pushing nonsense cases against people for no reason? First it was with Pesco, now it's with raider. Your cases make no sense, and looks like you're doing on purpose to off townies. Therefore, Vote iLord L-1

Malt, they make sense - some people just haven't been understanding or I haven't been explaining clearly - for example, the Pesco thing took me three pages to get across when I thought that it was obvious after a few sentences on it.

Anyways, we need to massclaim today. I'm serious about this. I have information that could win the game for the town, we just need to massclaim first.

I'd rather not, but if we agree to do so I guess I don't have a choice. Do we have to claim both our future and past roles?

@Zaz: It's pretty much my way of saying, 'I don't really want to, but I will if people agree.'

So if people agree, do you still want to claim last?

[iLord]

Raider, you don't have a wiki?

List of recent games? 2 scum and 2 town would be nice.

Search -> search for author -> category: mafia games -> display results as topics? Just saying... - Tar

[iLord]

adsfasdf

Search -> search for author -> category: mafia games -> display results as topics? Just saying... - Tar

Oh, cool! Thanks!

iLord: similarly, you are attacking raider partly because he voted. Since there would have been pretty much no difference between raider voting and raider telling malthusis to vote, why is he scummy for doing that?

There's no mechanical difference, but there's quite a notable psychological difference. His lack of acknowledging Malthusis shows that raider didn't want to "hammer" MSSK.

By nullifying his double vote it gives more information to the town. Everyone can see that I was on the lynch and therefor approved of the lynch.

Yes, it does give us more information. Contrary to what you seem to believe, everyone can see that you were on the lynch, but that you were afraid of taking the blame for the lynch.

If you are trying to make a real point please get to it. You case to me is summed up by "you voted therefor you are scum". Am I wrong?

No. My case is summed up by: "You rambled and didn't acknowledge Malthusis, therefore you are are scum."

The most common scum line? Do you have any idea how overused that is? It can be used for anything just as long as at some point someone said it and turned up scum. It does not hold any ground. You are trying to make something out of nothing. Why would I start to see you as scum? You have yet to make a case of how my actions are scummy. How it was negative to town.

Nice job trying to mimic me, but that's weak. It's commonly antitown because it allows you to set-up a subtler OMGUS to weaken my attack.

Also, good job ignoring my explanation of why your attack is ridiculous:

"Why would people 'just go with it?'"

--------------------------------------------------

Got to catch up in my other games, and then research on raider.

[iLord]

Oh, and Malt, could you unvote? I don't feel comfortable at L-1.

[iLord]

When did I say or even hint that I was afriad of taking the blame for the lynch? No one has yet to say it was a bad lynch or a bad case after the flip. The whole thing seemed fishy to me and he was telling the truth.

That was my whole point about you - you not mentioning Malt's inquiry was where you hinted at your mindset.

Because I didnt acknowledge someone? That is not even a case. There is no situation with SSK where I could have been the hammer so how does that even play a part in this?

You're completely ignoring my point - prefering instead to reduce my case down in any illegit way to can.

No, it's not just because you didn't acknowledge someone. It's also when you didn't acknowledge someone. No, you couldn't have been the mechanical hammer. But you could've been the psychological "hammer."

That would not be an OMGUS vote as I would have a case on your for trying to make something out of nothing. You fail to see that you are in fact doing that. Plus you are at L-1 from it. Your attack was weak from the start and has no backing. How is what you are doing not scummy?

I've already stated why your counterattack on me's reasoning is horrible, reasoning, which you have continuosly failed to answer.

"Plus you are at L-1 from it?" Really? Does that reduce the magnitude of my point at all? That does nothing to weaken the attack.

What I'm doing is not scummy, because I've caught scum. Stop attacking me and answer my points.

[iLord]

I support Zazie, then Malthy, and then finally Andersonw.

[iLord]

adsfasdf

I hinted at my mindset? Yes, I guess a vote would do that. Point?

I've already explained this in the comments you quoted below. What was the point of saying the above line?

What case?

You think you can reduce my case by asking questions like "What case?" and "Point?" Stop pretending I don't have any point against you.

Are you serious? The "psychological hammer"?

So the issue is not because I didnt acknowledge someone is because of when I didnt acknowledge someone?

"Are you serious?" - Another attempt to reduce my case. The psychological hammer is as valid as the mechanical one because you would not be the only one to percieve it.

I said "not just." The issue is both that you didn't acknowledge Malt and when you did not acknowledge him.

I have stated why your case is nothing. Malts votes are his to control and no one elses. I do not need to ok for him to vote someone even if that vote would be the lynch. You have no points so I really do not have anything to answer. Stop trying to think you have an issue when you dont. You have yet to even explain how my actions are scummy. Mind doing that? The L-1 was not to weaken your attack it is to show you have no attack.

No, you have stated that my case is nothing. Then, you stated the quoted reasoning about how Malt's vote is his own, and why you shouldn't give him the OK. Then, I responded to it. You then stopped discussing the reasoning entirely, prefering instead to attack the status of the case rather than the actual points within. Yes, you do have points to answer - I've already given them to you.

"Stop trying to think you have an issue when you don't." - Uh huh. That's going to work. Why are you telling me to stop pushing my attack?

How does the L-1 show that I have no attack?

God, you are so scummy.

I highly encourage everyone to look over the last few posts between raider and I. Yes, no skimming.

[iLord]

Your whole case is nonsense how do you not see that?

You keep pushing it yet have not explained how this is scummy. Saying the timing of my vote and not responding to someone else's post is scummy? Explain how if I was scum that could have been used to scum's advantage? The post was not directed at me and even if it was I would have said that is his decision to make not mine. I voted for SSK so of course I was for his lynch. Saying I did not want to take responsibility for it? I voted therefor I did. Everyone who was on that bandwagon should take responsibility.

All this because I voted instead of saying he just lynch the guy. Which would have been scummy but you fail to see that.

To sum up your case is nonsense, you have no point. I will wait for yet another pointless post saying how I am trying to reduce your case.

All points about how nonexistent or pointless my case is are bolded.

Scumtells are not what benefits the scum - scumtells is what scum would do. What you did had not benefit to the scum -

almost all behavorial scumtells have no benefit to the scum.

What you did if very likely to be indicative of scum mindset.

The post was directed at the entire town. Malt was asking - do we want to lynch? If you supported the lynch, as you say you did, then why did you not mention Malt? (Even a "you can do what you want" would've been better), if not to avoid the "psychological" hammer? You still have refrained from answering this point, which is horribly scummy.

Everyone did take responsibility for it. However, the one that hammers takes the most responbility. For example, if someone was lynched before the town was ready, obviously, the hammerer would get a lot of heat. Similarily here. Since you voted MSSK, you were not the one that "hammered" - Malt was. If you had told Malt to hammer, then you would've been responsible for the lynch, something you obviously avoided.

All this because I voted instead of saying he just lynch the guy. Which would have been scummy but you fail to see that.

Could you explain what you are trying to say here?

Also, you avoided answering a few questions I posed in my last post - I'm repeating them here:

I've already explained this in the comments you quoted below. What was the point of saying the above line?

"Stop trying to think you have an issue when you don't." - Uh huh. That's going to work. Why are you telling me to stop pushing my attack?

How does the L-1 show that I have no attack?

Also, you failed to explain why the psychological hammer is not a valid point.

[iLord]

Alright, so are we massclaiming?

If you feel that doing so would be beneficial.

I don't know what else I can say to say that your case is nonsense except that who hammered SSK MEANS NOTHING. We practically all agreed that it made no sense, I was simply seeing if anyone had any absolutely major objections (Zaz hadn't posted her thoughts yet recently). I haven't agreed with this entire case at all, especially the Pesco case when you were doubting a CLAIMED COP with a GUILTY.

Malt, stop being so stubborn, and actually read my case. Who hammered SSK mechanically means nothing. However, we must look at it psychologically. Just because everyone else said that it made no sense, doesn’t reduce it’s magnitude (Not to mention that outside of raider obviously, only you have continuously been pushing that it makes no sense. Read my posts, and then answer why the psychological hammer means nothing.

What does the Pesco case have to do with this?

You haven’t explained why the Pesco mindset thing was flawed – by your apparent means of measurement – two other players agreed with what I was saying. Even you assume that the argument is weak, then how is it indicative of scum?

Why are you voting me?

[iLord]

Oh, and Nat, what do you think about my Raider case?

[iLord]

I'd like to massclaim, however I don't want malthusis as one of the last. I'd be much happier with him as one of the first three or that we do it popcorn-style.
Do we also include the character we are or not?

Before I look at the iLord-Raider discussion, I have a question.
Does the mafia traitor (aka Coheed) count as one of the mafia? What I mean is this. Normally in mini's there are 3 mafia members. Would a mafia traitor be part of one of these three or does he count as a fourth one?

Most likely there's still two mafia out there, from what I've seen.

[iLord]

Well, I'm probably going to be NKed now...

I'm Navi.

In the Past, I can bring a player back to life - and it's no mystery who I was going to bring back.

In the Future, I am a 1-Shot Doctor, which makes me even more suspicious of raider.

@Raider: Can you survive one night attack in the past, or in the future?

---------------------------------------

[iLord]

asdfadsf

I do not feel the need to repeat them every time I post. Just read through my previous posts. IF you have a question regarding something then ask the question.

What does that have to do with you attacking the status of my case as opposed to the points?

Ok problem solved, I am now the person who hammered SSK. Does that work for you? I am now the reason he was lynched.

No, it doesn't work. It matters little what you say now - it matters what your mindset was before.

Anyone can say what you're saying now, with little reprecussions.

You tell me it your case. I am just trying to repost it to make sure I understand that I am seeing this right.

I'm afraid I still don't understand. Could you elaborate on the "Which would have been scummy but you fail to see that."

I do not feel the need to repeat them every time I post. Just read through my previous posts. IF you have a question regarding something then ask the question.

Again, what does this have to do with attacking the status of my case rather than the actual case? If you had answered my points, what would be the point of saying stuff like you did?

I have yet to see how you think I am scum. I have yet to understand how my actions were scummy. Shows your attack is just a waste of time if you can not show how it was scummy. You have tried to answer this a few times but have not succeeded. I await another attempt and maybe we can figure out what your problem is and go from there.

I've stated it multiple times, to your responses of "Are you serious?" and the such. Stop pretending that this is based on a misunderstanding - you understand perfectly what's going on, and you have no answer to it, hence you not being able to respond to the actual points.

To expand on that if you had a point or a case then someone else would add their vote and continue the attack. As this has not happened I think everyone else feels you are pushing nothing. Furthermore you got a couple votes because of you trying to push this issue. Make sense now?

No, it doesn't. None of that says why my attack is weak. How does lack of popularity weaken an attack's magnitude?

It is not a valid point. By saying nothing at all I am the psychological hammer. It is just a crap point. Holds no meaning. His question was open to everyone and yet no one responded yet you are trying to blame me for it? If you are trying to blame me for something atleast come out with it. I did the right thing and I took responsibility for my vote. What have you done?

Stop trying to reduce my points!

By saying nothing at all, you are not the psychological hammer. You are the psychological and mechanical L-1. What do you mean no one else responded? You were the only vote! Again with the "but everyone else did it too!"

You didn't say why it is a bad point at all - only that everyone else was doing it (which wasn't true) and that you were the psychological hammer anyway (which is obviously not true as well). Not once have you specified why avoiding the pyschological hammer is not indicative of scum.

"What have you done?" - Trying to attack me now as well?

People, please look over this conversation - raider has been so scummy it's ridiculous. When you look over it, read the whole thing.

[iLord]

I can survive one night attack. I assume either but it was used up in the past. So you can prevent a kill a kill in the future. Mine is in the past. This is odd.

So your role does not specify when it can survive one night attack?

[iLord]

No it just says I can survive one night attack. I assume it means either or. It was used while we were in the past if that means anything. Why do you care?

"Why do you care?"

What was the reasoning behind asking this question?

The answer to it is that my role is formatted in such a way that I find what you claim unlikely. I'll expand on it after everyone else claims.

Zazie is up next.

[iLord]

Ok Im just sick of responding to crap from ilord. If anyone wants me to answer anything I will gladly do so. When I get some time I need to reread ilord. I have alot of homework I need to do today and my son is being born tomorrow so it may be a bit.

I understand that you may have limited time right now, but you do intend to answer my points eventually? I couldn't discern your intentions regarding that from this post - you only mentioned that you wanted to reread me. And to that, I ask: "What do you think about my claim?"

[iLord]

Uhh, iLord, you won't be dead because I am Princess Zelda, Townie Ocarina of Time Specialist. I've been the one all this time picking what time frame we are in. As well as the power to change the time we are in, since I am part of the Royal Family, I carry immense respect (double vote). Any questions about what I've done so far with the time-travel?

Hm, that's quite perplexing - it doesn't say specifically when you have the double vote?

If you're telling the truth, it gives scum quite a choice. If they don't kill you, then we can go into the future, which may or may not be a bad thing. If they don't kill me, then Pesco comes back.

Can you explain the Light Arrow NKs?

[iLord]

@iLord: My double vote is permenant: I have it all the time.

Oh, okay. That takes away that point against raider's claim.

On a different note: Maybe Saria was my backup?

That would fit mechanically, but I don't know enough about flavor to say anything else about it.

Were Link/Zelda/Sheik the only characters that possessed the Light Arrows in game? Was there a "evil" Link?

[iLord]

Wait, I just saw that your claimed role name.

What was the Fairy Ocarina?

[iLord]

Vote: Mathusis

Fell exactly into my trap. I was looking for the source of the Light Arrows.

You made us massclaim for that?

Are you kidding me?

There's so many ways that the light arrows could be justified, that this idea by itself by no means justifed a massclaim.

[iLord]

Andersonw, you're next.

Why?

I don't find Nat's play particularily scummy - only rather controversial. I really don't think Zelda's enough for a lynch, considering the fact that light arrows being NK's was public information.

[iLord]

Also, does anybody know if you get a message when you as 1-shot bulletproof townie are targeted by scum?

From my experience, they're generally told so.

Did Malt hint that he was two people? I remember Malt hinting that explaining his double vote would give away his role, but I shoud probably look back.

[iLord]

You sure you're not Sheik?

That's very interesting. I can't really see a way for Malt to explain his way out of this...

[iLord]

tl'dr: Malthusis is a walking contradiction?

Actually, I see what Malt's saying. He's Zelda, and Zelda and Sheik are the same person, so it wouldn't make sense for them to be in the same game, even though he's not Sheik.

[iLord]

@raider: I was trying to figure out whether or not your role was compatible with mine. I believed that it was not, but Malt disproved that.

My role is a doc in the future. SP's a 1-shot bulletproof.

[iLord]

I'm pretty sure two - most of the mini's I've seen with traitors have had three "real" mafia.

I see no reason for andersonw to claim.

[iLord]

andersonw should not reveal - he's not getting killed tonight because the scum can't risk Pesco coming back - he can reveal tommorow.

Also, malthusis: If it is still possible that both Zelda and Shiek could both have been in the game (obviously not now, of course), why would you still counterclaim even if there was a small chance? Looking at the wikipedia article, it says that Zelda was Sheik in the future, so I would be surprised if I was Zelda and wasn't Sheik (this is pretty much speculation, but the flavor seems pretty strong to me).

Could you elaborate on what you are trying to say here? I'm a little confused.

[iLord]

I don't believe ZONEACE is making the kills. It's possible, but I just don't find it likely, even within the realms of a Tar game. Regardless, I don't think Malt's scum - I'd much prefer a raider lynch.

[iLord]

When you have a real reason to want me lynched let me know.

What was the purpose of this post?

I've stated my reasoning multiple times in thread. The only thing that has changed is that people haven't agreed with me.

Posts like this are reading extremely scummy - not only do they accomplsih nothing, you're attempting to attack the status of my reasoning rather than reasoning itself in an attempt to weaken it.

[iLord]

There's probably not more then two scum right now for sure. I'm more for the idea that the scum group as a whole has the kill ability light arrows (or maybe Rauru passed them on) then zoneace keeping sniping us (Plus even if he was allowed to do that, he was modkilled, which means that he'd probably lose that power).

Zazie was saying that in that scenario, the scum would be able to control ZONEACE's ability.

[iLord]

There are two scum, if everyone listened to me.

This is the scumteam, from what I'd think.

2 scumzors(Malthusis and ZONEACE).
1 Past Mafia Traitor
1 Future Mafia Traitor

Since traitors usually don't know the identity of mafiates, then they can easily be worked into changing alignments mid-game.

This is plausible. It changes little of how we are scumhunting, though. Still two mafia.

[iLord]

You guys do realize we have only 3 days left till deadline?

Yeah, and you're the only person that we seem to be able to get a majority on.

I support a Malt lynch over no lynch.

No one agrees with me on raider.

[iLord]

Unvote, Vote Malthusis

Malt, if you don't unvote, we'll have to no lynch. Please unvote Nat.

[iLord]

I would be surprised if Zelda was still Zelda in the future, because the flavor goes strongly against that. Therefore, if someone claimed Shiek, wouldn't there still be a possibility of that person telling the truth?

I don't think it works that way - Zelda was still Zelda in the future, she just diguised herself at Sheik for apparently a good portion of it. However, Sheik is only a disguise of Zelda, so I don't see how it can be it's own character.

@iLord: So you think malthusis is scum?

Not really, he's third on my list [raider, Zazie, and then Malt].

and iLord, you never made that ZazieR case, what happened to that?

Lack of time - I've been really busy and I can't even recall what I suspected her for. I just remembered that during a brief scan reread, I found Zazie the scummiest, followed by Malt. After the 25th, I'll have some more time to look closer.

[iLord]

Of course, I probably won't be alive by then .

[iLord]

@Tar: Is the above vote count correct?

Typo fairy says no. Fixed. - Tar

[iLord]

Zazie, what is your opinion on who to lynch?

[iLord]

No.

iLord, I won't just let myself be lynched and make town lose the game. As much as I think you are scum, I'll happily agree with Zaz lynch over no lynch. Unvote, Vote Zazier

I'll go with Zazie lynch - I didn't think there was enough support, mostly because I haven't had time to make a case on her. I don't even remember my initial reasoning.

Unvote, Vote Zazie

I'm going to go reread if I can find time. I just find it slightly pointless to attempt to bring up any large cases with the deadline looming tommorrow and me most likely being dead by tommorrow.

Malt, could you explain why you think I'm scum?

[iLord]

[quote="raider']Vote ilord

You have jumped to 3 different people and yet none of which has had any reason. If you felt someone was more scummy you would have voted them. You also would have made a case on someone instead of just saying they are scummy. You are just trying to get someone lynched not caring if they are scum or not. These are actions scum would do and I completely think you are scum. [/quote]

Yep, I haven't had a reason. I just want someone lynched before the deadline - we do not want a no lynch.

I have said that I suspect you, Zazie, Malt. I've stated reasons for my suspicion of you, but no one has listened. I haven't listed reasons for Malt or Zazie yet, but if you read my last post, you would have seen that I don't really remember - and I don't really have the time or the will to look them up right now.

Those are not actions that will do. It's posts like these that make me think you are scum. Let me ask you this:

How likely is is that I am scum, considering my claim?

[iLord]

Ah, sorry for the messed up tags - I thought I fixed them too.

[iLord]

Posts of Interest (I'm rereading):

Could MafiaSSK possibly be Ganon?

Slapping suspicion on MSSK.

Commenting on the actions of other players is possible. I like to have more then just a few pages before I try looking for cases. People do make mistakes and I do not like to hang someone from one mistake. There are exceptions but I try to keep to that in general. Those asking for cases are trying to start a bandwagon and at this point those are easy to start and can be directed at most people in the game. Mislynches are all too easy at that point.

This goes against Open 91 play at least - raider was too busy being attacked in Eddy Izzard. More research later.

(p. 640)

@Zazier: Let's just say if I told you, you'd have a good idea of who I'd be.

Why would important make it obvious that you are Zelda?

I failed to see why coheed was just tossed up because of the deadline. I thought it was given he was town but because everyone jumped on the bandwagon because of the time factor I am not sure how much can be gained from it.

Trying to seem mad that townie was mislynched. Really townie would have not posted above because of understanding lynch > no lynch Day 1.

As no one else has counter claimed to be Link I think that is solid. My vote stands for the time being but how why would the mask of truth say you are scum?

Have you played in a Tar game before (not enough time to check)?

Zoneace, once the guilty came out there is more less enough reason to full claim if you are not able to explain why a guilty came out. I have never seen someone not get lynched when a guilty came out their way. If you would have claimed right away and then everyone could have talked and came to a decision before the votes were placed. Just my 2 cents.

Nothing about "full claim now if you're townie so that you can help the town." Scummy.

I do not think SP made a mistake. Why else would the mod feel the need to chime in and his mistake was not a mistake as it happened to be right. I think he knew what his partner was and said so in game before realizing that the mod put down the wrong role.

Vote SP

Mod chime in is weak justification - raider uses this a lot this game - weak, different points to jump on wagons.

-----------------------------------

At post 507 - more later.

[iLord]

I'm probably not going to be alive to help you out .

[iLord]

Deadline is the 17th, if no one adds their vote then I will reconsider before the deadline hits.

You haven't answered the points in my above case, or why you want me lynched despite my claim.

[iLord]

What are you talking about? You just like to toss points out there and hope no one questions them.

Attacking status again.

You didn't have any problems with early opinions in Eddy Izzard.

Lynch is better then no lynch however, there was still a day before the deadline there was time. You just wanted to toss someone up to be lynched and didnt care if the person was scum or town. You are scum and just trying to mislynch. You jump on anything to try and force a lynch. That is very scummy.

Are you attacking me for this? Coheed was scummy - we lynched him. There was one day before the deadline - very unlikely that we were going to get someone else lynched.

Dont think so, why should this matter though? This just leads to set up role speculation and I think it takes away from the game and makes it not as much fun.

Tar always gives falseclaims.

Are you high or something? He was presumed guilty with the investigation its his job to prove to us he is innocent. The claim would start the process.

Now attacking me.

I was saying that you didn't tell ZONEACE to claim his role (like Zazie did) after he claimed town after being lynched.

Really? Now you are just lair. Show me where I have used mod chime a lot in this game.

Attacking me.

Misrepresenting me as well. I said you used poor points in general and not just mod chime. Plus, you didn't even defend your mod chime point - the implication of the above statement is that you conceded its weakness.

Ilord I really hope others see how scummy you are.

Once again, you ignored my claim. Good job, scum.

[iLord]

Your claim? We have no means to know if your claim is true or not. If you make up a good false claim then anything is possible. Of course if you are able to bring someone back its possible they will come back as scum or something like that. Nothing is set in stone.

If I am left alive, Pesco will come back with all of his abilities. It would be completely broken for scum to get a vig.

You do have a means to know whether or not its true. AFter I get nightkilled, or after Pesco comes back.

God, you're so scummy. Please can we lynch raider today?

[iLord]

asdfasdf

[quote-"Zazie"]-Nat: His proxy ability bothers me a lot. During the claims, he said that he could use proxy in the future. I really want to know why he hasn't used it in the future, while 'tried' in the past. I also want to know which two obvious reasons Tarh meant when Natirasha proxied iLord in the past. He may also explain this:

<SNIP>

I really don't understand you here. First you proxy iLord and you say that it's your ability, but when you say to the mod that you're proxying iLord (which didn't work) you say that you meant something entirely different.

Also, why did you proxy yourself if you can't vote yourself when your ability is active? (that's according to your claim)
[/quote]

This attack is weak - I don't see how it's indicative of scum.

Will keep it at this. I only don't like it how iLord doesn't give me the chance to defend. I've also seen Raider play like this some games so I won't mention him for a time.

I don't remember why I suspected you. That's why I started rereading. I don't want no lynch - you understand, I'm sure.

Was Raider town in said games? How did he act?

And why would someone believe if you have already lied once, I do not see you not doing it again.

Scum normally want everyone else lynched so its understandable that you want me lynched.

Because it would be obvious my ability is real once Pesco comes back?

When did I lie?

There you go throwing away my points because I'm apparently scum. Even if I were scum, you would still have to defend against my points, because motive does not weaken the magnitude of my points. Points are just as valid, regardless of who says them be it from a confirmed townie to a guilty-investigated scum.

You just dropped all of the previous points.

[iLord]

Last, but not least. iLord, if you're a townie, then I really can't understand your play. Voting someone without giving a case at all. But you had the time to respond to Raider. And especially as you said that you'd put my case up after you had put your case up in another game. It seems that you did put that case up the 1st and the 2nd of December. If you're a townie, then I won't forgive you for this play here, because it has only hurt the town.

Good luck to the rest.

I voted you to avoid a No Lynch. I'm sorry if you feel that it was bad play, but I felt that it was important that no lynch be avoided.

I can’t even remember why I was suspicious of you – I looked back, and even up to page 21, I didn’t find anything.

On another note, I actually don’t think you’re right here – I’m pretty sure the scumteam is raider and Malt.

We shall find out if you are lied again. All of your cases have been horribly weak. I have never dropped any points I have been waiting for you to respond with something worth while. Looks like you only can make crappy cases and then when it doesnt work jump to something else. I really hope ZazieR is scum as you have just been trying for quick lynches all day.

raider, I have a strong belief that if you were town, you would be a lot more rational than this.

If my cases are weak, they should be easy to defend against, instead of you having to drop down to attacking me and that status of my points. You did drop the points - you still haven't responded to my responses.

I have been going for quick lynches all day -

in case you didn't realize it, we're under a deadline.

And, on top of all that, you've continued to attack me, just calling my almost immediately confirmable role a lie.

I don't get why you aren't lynched yet.

[iLord]

asdfadf

Plus you better hope that you did hit scum otherwise if there are 2 scum alive game over!!

I feel retarded - I didn't even notice this. What the heck!

On the flipside, that makes raider town, which means that I was completely off this game. My apologies

And yet you hammered someone else.

Again, I didn't even realize we were in LyLo. That would actually explain nicely why you think I'm so scummy. Sorry guys.

What I'm wondering is why no one mentioned that it was LyLo. Did no one else notice?

[iLord]

Great game Tar - I had a fun time playing in it, even though I was as wrong as always.

Really sorry about my poor play on the day I died - I didn't notcie that they were so few townies left.

[iLord]

Now that I can say it, I never saw the message where malt was asking if he could hammer. Had I saw it I think I would have said its up to him and that I supported it while I voted. Everything else would have been the same.

You could've just said that - it didn't make sense for you to do what you did as town if you saw Malt's post.

Regardless, I was wrong because you were survivor.

[iLord]

[quote=Malt]It sort of felt cheap that andersonw did absolutely nothing to deserve his win because he was lurking so much (I think you totally deserved it though, what scum would write a huge analysis?) Another reason is that you seemed so truthful that it was hard to believe you were lieing. If raider's kill hadn't been blocked, that would provided us with a ton of information, as well as taking a non-town out. I'm still sorta confused at iLord's play and his weird cases made it feel he was trying to make something out of nothing. Can't wait to see what the mod thinks about this game. (On a side note, has town ever won a Tar game? (MSII was won by the SK, and B5 was won by a non-town faction). [/quote]

But, my cases make sense to me? !

More seriously, I stand by that my cases made sense to me - I just happened to be wrong on sevearl of them.

[iLord]

Oooh! MTG and parallel games in the same game! /pre-in for MTG Parallel Universe.